Open timrobertson100 opened 4 years ago
indeed the order in authorship field is surprising. It is copied straight from the original source record which has the same oddity: https://api.gbif.org/v1/species/111210659
This is fixed in the API, but still present in the exported DwC-A
If you look at this record you'll see
It looks like combination authorship are correct in the scientific name but swapping in the authorship field?